1. Provide security in life, liberty and property to each citizen in his home from depredation by common criminals;

2. Provide security in life, liberty and property to the community by assisting, when necessary, duly constituted authority in maintaining civil order; and

3. Provide security in life, liberty and property to the states and nation by being the credible countervailing power to would-be tyrannical government.

These three functions are provided for in the concept of a "well-regulated militia," -- which at the time meant well disciplined, well led, well trained, well armed, with weapons of common caliber -- bands of citizen soldiers operating in the common defense of life, liberty and property.

As I wrote then, Tasks One and Two are, even today, largely uncontroversial and even unpolitical (except in the minds of the most demanding hoplophobes, see, for a current example, Law professor dismisses reason for Second Amendment as 'historical trivia'). Task Three, on the other hand, is entirely political, for this was the principal purpose of the Founders in codifying it in the the Second Amendment.

As the quotes cited in Part One from various men of the Founders' generation show, they were suspicious of a standing army and even a "select" militia and counted on the general militia of all able-bodied citizens to restrain the standing army if it was directed for some tyrannical purpose by an American would-be dictator. It is important to remember that these suspicious Founders fully expected a future American Caesar to be elected by a majority of the citizens, using the tools of the demagogue, and representing the "tyranny of the mob." The Founders were as critical of unrestrained democracy as they were Caesarism or monarchy. This is why they crafted a constitutional republic of competing branches and ordered liberty.

The armed citizenry was key to the maintenance of their ideal. And though their concept was, according to the military and political realities of their time, sophisticated, its premise was simple: as long as the people had the means to kill a tyrant, the would-be tyrant would be restrained by that fear even if the rest of the system of checks and balances had failed in allowing his rise. (Ben Franklin's comment at the time of the Constitutional Convention arguments is instructive: "It is good that we have provided for impeachment for the alternative is assassination.")

The Founders also understood the common militia as a countervailing power to local tyranny, and would have celebrated the 1946 Battle of Athens as a perfect example of what they expected from the citizenry. Note that the Battle of Athens was made necessary by the prior complete failure of a corrupt local system to protect the people. The Founders expected that the political process would be exhausted, as indeed they had done, before the people exercised their right to defensive use of arms. The Founders were, first and foremost, cognizant of the moral components of both politics and war.

But we stand now in the opening decades of the 21st Century, following that most ghastly violent 20th, where dictators ruled, genocides flourished and simple resistance by even an armed populace against the ever more powerful tools of the modern state has become more and more difficult, at least as the Founders imagined it given the realities of the late 18th Century.

Does this negate their idea? Certainly not. Nor does it, actually, change their requirement for trained, equipped citizen soldiers -- "well regulated militias" -- familiar with light infantry arms and ready to maintain order as required by Tasks One and Two above. Indeed, the citizen soldier of today must be as ready to muster and maneuver according to need as the Minute Men of old. And they must be as familiar with the entire range of weaponry required by the 21st Century soldier, including the laptop, as was Capt. Parker's company with the Brown Bess or5 Morgan's Rifle Corps with the Kentucky rifle, the knife and the tomahawk.

What has changed is the character of successful modern warfare and how that applies to the credible deterrence of tyranny, and that means applying lessons as old as Sun Tzu but called today by the moniker of Fourth Generation Warfare to the uniquely American realities today. From Wikipedia:

Fourth generation warfare is normally characterized by a violent non-state actor (VNSA) fighting a state. This fighting can be physically done, such as by modern examples Hezbollah or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In this realm the VNSA uses all three levels of fourth generation warfare. These are the physical (actual combat; it is considered the least important), mental (the will to fight, belief in victory, etc.) and moral (the most important, this includes cultural norms, etc.) levels.

A 4GW enemy has the following characteristics: lacks hierarchal authority, lack of formal structure, (has) patience and flexibility, (Has the) ability to keep a low profile when needed, and small size. A 4GW adversary might use the tactics of an insurgent, terrorist, or guerrilla in order to wage war against a nation's infastructure. Fourth generation warfare takes place on all fronts: economical, political, the media, military, and civilian.

Resistance can also be below the physical level of violence. This is via non-violent means, such as Gandhi’s opposition to the British Empire or Martin Luther King’s marches. Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.

Another characteristic of fourth generation warfare is that as with third generation warfare, the VNSA’s forces are decentralized. With fourth generation warfare there may even be no single organisation and that smaller groups organize into impromptu alliances to target a bigger threat (that being the state armed forces or another faction). As a result these alliances are weak and if the state’s military leadership is smart enough they can split their enemy and cause them to fight amongst themselves.

Further, says Wikipedia, Fourth generation warfare goals are:

1 .Survival

Now, in the Founder's context, substitute "armed citizenry" for Violent Non-State Actor and delete any use of terror tactics, especially targeted against innocents. Governments think they can afford "collateral damage," the armed citizenry cannot. It is not just our survival that counts, but all of the people, even those who disagree with us but who are not combatants. But survival merely ensures you stay in the fight. It is the second goal that is primary:

2. To convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.

Read that again. I would like to make just one change. My version would read thusly:

2. To convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived PERSONAL benefit.

Deterrence before any fight rests on this. Winning the fight after the tyrant begins his campaign of violence against the people cannot happen without it. The tyrant and his political decision makers must understand that they will pay a PERSONAL price for their depredations. If they fail to recognize before the fact then they must, like the Bugger Queens in Ender's Game, be taught by people who recognize that "the enemy's gate is down," and that whatever happens beforehand, the end will be when someone in the resistance comes straight for them, and not waste their efforts on the minions.

The metaphor only goes so far, of course, for we are talking about humans, not bugs. But if our tyrant-wannabes understand the credible threat of the cost up front, they will not go there, unless invited to do so by a belief that we are unready to meet them.

For their part, the Founders must be shaking their heads in dismay at our failure to use political means to restrain this unconstitutional imperial federal government as well as the disuse into which the militia system they gave us has fallen.

“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature.” -- Carl von Clausewitz, On War

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

19 years ago today, the ATF attacked a church outside Waco, Texas. The shooting stopped when the ATF ran out of ammunition and asked to be able to withdraw. The Davidians consented. 5 Davidians were killed that day and four ATF agents, all in the name of federal gun control laws. And that was just the beginning of the massacre. Remember.

I have a tumor, stomach, outer lining, one each, with attendant ulceration, inner lining. Tissue samples taken, will know what it is Thursday. Further surgery certain. Will advise when I know more. Have been through ringer today, so I'm taking a few hours off. At least it's not an alien.

Subject: Regarding your apparently serious proposal for another civil war. We accept, as long as you understand where this is going.

"Tyrants have no problem dealing with people who are willing to die for their principles. They will happily kill them to achieve their goals. Where they fail is with the people who are not only willing to die for their principles but are willing to kill tyrants in righteous self defense of those principles, and their property, liberty and lives." -- Mike Vanderboegh

My dear Ms. Karvunidis,

Having read your column, "Ohio school shooting: Time to ban handguns, guys," I have two questions:

First, how do you propose to do that without initiating a bloody second American civil war?

Second, how much is such a tyranny worth to you, personally?

The answer to the first question is that you can't. Oh, you may be extrapolating from your own social isolation, cultural ignorance and moral cowardice to believe that just because the big bad government, state or federal, tells you to do something at the point of a government gun that YOU would certainly do it -- so consequently we will. You may even be so poorly educated as to believe that "democracy" -- unfettered majority rule -- trumps constitutional republicanism just because your side wins a vote. Whatever the cause of your ill-thought proposal, the result would be a ghastly civil war, for if you wish to get my handguns -- or any firearms -- you will have to kill me to get them. In addition, you will have to kill my brother, you will have to kill my son and daughters, you will have to kill all my friends. And if just three percent of American gun owners feel the way I do, you will have to kill upwards of 3 million people. And, not to be ugly, but we will not go gently into your collectivist good night peaceably and will take as many freedom-stealing sonsabitches your proposal sends our way, and we intend to make that more than a one-to-one ratio. So, where are we at now, mathematically, with your proposal? Stacks of bodies in the tens of millions certainly. It seems an odd way to prevent school shootings and promote "public safety."

I had to laugh, as well, at your Borg-like characterization, also apparently from absolute ignorance, that "Resistance is Futile!":

Well guess what? Now the government has nukes, automatic weapons and sniper rifles. If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank. You lose, Gun Jockey! If you really want things to be fair, why don't you lobby for the right to a nuke. That will totally happen.

Please, Jenna, really, you don't know much about the military, do you? Nor military history, obviously. Who do you think makes up the military these days? The sons and daughters of gun control advocates? The draft is long gone, and you wouldn't find a "progressive's" son caught dead within a kilometer of a recruiting station. Why it is OUR children who still believe in the old verities enough to sacrifice themselves to protect this country. It is our children who, if your tyrannical order is given by your Man-Child God-King Barry Soetero, will be in the command posts, tactical operations centers and in the barracks of the tip-of-the-spear combat formations. All of them took an oath to defend the Constitution against "ALL enemies, foreign and domestic." It was not a personal "Fuhrer oath" to Barrack Hussein Obama. Which way, when your order is given, do you suppose they will point those sophisticated and powerful weapons in the event of civil war over firearms liberty -- something codified in that Constitution they swore to uphold?

And as for the efficacy of determined guerrillas versus a powerful, sophisticated military, the history of such conflicts across the centuries suggests that putting your money on the guerrillas is a safer bet. A tank is of limited utility against nimble guerrillas using Fourth Generation Warfare techniques targeted against the politicians who command them. A nuke? Come, Jenna, think it through. Of what use is a nuke when your proposal would require it to be used on your own soil, against your own people? The political blowback of the use of nukes on American soil, even among other ignoramuses who would support your proposal, would instead blow Barry right out of the White House and bring down the entire Federal Leviathan nanny-state tyranny. Of course, they don't even teach the important lessons of the American Revolution in public schools anymore (and I'm assuming you went to government schools, for no private school or home school product would be so abysmally ignorant of her own history) so perhaps it is not your fault. But now that I have explained to you the facts of life and liberty I'm sure you'll see the folly of your proposal.

No?

Okay, how about Question Two?

How much is such a tyranny worth to you, personally?

In 1999, your previous man-child president Bill Clinton was upset at the Serbs. They were killing their ex-countrymen, the Muslim Kosovars and Bosnians, and wouldn't listen to reason. Exasperated, Clinton decided that the NATO bombing campaign would be expanded -- changing the rules of engagement by which our military operates -- to include the politicians who crafted the policies and (pay particular attention here, Jenna) the media and intellectuals who publicly supported the Serbian cause. To this end, Clinton ordered precision guided munitions sent in the middle of the night into the homes of such people, as well as the headquarters of Serbian radio and television.

It is, then, no small kindness I do you by pointing out that -- assuming you get your way -- if the previously law-abiding (but well-armed) folks whom your proposal makes criminals and guerrillas in their own country overnight decide to adopt Bill Clinton's Serbian Rules, you might want to relocate to Canada as a precaution.

Of course, all of this seems like calculated insanity to you, just as your proposal seems to us. Well, there are a lot of us who have been paying particular attention to the way the federal government really works ever since Waco in 1993. We don't live in your bubble. Waco taught us we couldn't afford to.

So, if you now concede that your proposal was unthinking, stupid and doomed to fail because of its unintended consequences and not worth the likely body count and agony to the country, I will consider this a letter well written and time well spent.

If on the other hand, you still deny inconvenient reality and stubbornly cling to your proposal, well, all I can say is, if you get your way and the government tries to enforce it, you'll find plenty of people who will take you up on it.

Evidence Reveals that Similar Investigative Tactics to Fast and Furious were Used

WASHINGTON – Chairman Darrell Issa Senator Chuck Grassley today questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about revelations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was aware of straw buying by Manuel Barba during a several month span of which one of the weapons found at the murder scene of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Officer Jaime Zapata was purchased.

In a letter to Holder today, Issa and Grassley wrote that in addition to Otilio and Rafael Osorio and Kelvin Morrison, which they have previously asked about and received non-substantive responses, it appears that another straw purchaser with ties to the Zapata murder was well-known to ATF officials. In their letter, they wrote, “Records indicate that ATF opened a case against Manuel Barba in June 2010,[1] approximately two months before he took possession on August 20, 2010, of the rifle which was later trafficked to Mexico and also used in the murder of Agent Zapata.[2] Additionally, the documents show that ATF had indications in October 2010 that Barba was obliterating serial numbers on weapons, the possession of which would have been a prosecutable offense.[3]” Yet, Barba was not arrested until February 14, 2011.

Issa and Grassley have been investigating the actions of the Justice Department and the ATF that allowed gunwalking, guns purchased by known straw buyers who then often transferred the firearms to Mexican Drug Cartels, to occur in at least one ATF field office jurisdiction.

One of the major flaws found in the tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious, where gunwalking was known to occur, was the failure to conduct surveillance of individuals known to be trafficking weapons to Mexico, which allowed such firearms to reach the border. Issa and Grassley said that the same irresponsible tactic appears to have been used as the ATF allowed guns to cross the border in Texas. . .

For almost an entire year, we have been requesting that the Department provide information about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) knowledge regarding Otilio Osorio’s straw purchasing activities. We are interested in him because he was the straw purchaser of the weapon used in the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata on February 15, 2011.

Letters from Senator Grassley on March 4, 2011, and March 28, 2011 provided documentation that, on September 17, 2010, ATF traced trafficked weapons to Otilio’s brother and co-habitant, Ranferi Osorio, as well as the Osorio brothers’ next-door neighbor, Kelvin Morrison. Senator Grassley further inquired why these facts did not prompt ATF to conduct a “knock and talk” with these individuals or begin conducting surveillance on them.

On November 9, 2010, as part of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation, ATF witnessed Otilio and Ranferi Osorio providing 40 weapons with obliterated serial numbers to an undercover ATF informant for the purpose of trafficking the weapons to Mexico. Surprisingly, they were not arrested for another three and a half months. Senator Grassley further inquired why they were not arrested at the time they were observed to be in possession of weapons with obliterated serial numbers, which is a crime. He asked whether ATF or DEA continued to surveil the Osorio brothers between early November and their arrest, following the discovery that Otilio Osorio’s weapon was used in the murder of Agent Zapata. Inexplicably, the Department has failed to provide substantive responses to any of these letters, including a subsequent follow-up letter on this matter, sent jointly on October 25, 2011.

ATF has tried to distinguish this case from Operation Fast and Furious and to justify its failure to intervene. In one news article on the Osorio brothers, ATF North Texas spokesperson Tom Crowley is quoted as saying: “[T]aking them down and arresting them at that time would have possibly jeopardized that investigation. . . . None of the tactics used in this investigation were anything similar to what was used in Arizona’s Fast and Furious, including intentionally walking firearms across the border.”[4] Yet failure to conduct surveillance of individuals known to be trafficking weapons to Mexico was a core problem with the tactics used in Fast and Furious. Lack of surveillance is what allowed such firearms to reach the border. The same irresponsible tactic appears to have been used in this matter.

Now, news reports indicate that this may have been an issue with a purchaser of another one of the weapons found at Agent Zapata’s murder scene.[5] Records indicate that ATF opened a case against Manuel Barba in June 2010,[6] approximately two months before he took possession on August 20, 2010, of the rifle which was later trafficked to Mexico and also used in the murder of Agent Zapata.[7] Additionally, the documents show that ATF had indications in October 2010 that Barba was obliterating serial numbers on weapons, the possession of which would have been a prosecutable offense.[8] At least as of December 13, 2010, ATF also was aware that Barba was still under indictment for a 2006 state case, and thus had been unlawfully receiving firearms while under indictment.[9] However, a warrant was not issued for Barba’s arrest in this case until February 14, 2011.[10]

To assist us in better understanding of the circumstances leading up to the murder of Agent Zapata, please answer the following questions:

1. Did ATF have any contact with Barba, such as a “knock and talk,” between June 7, 2010, when Barba’s case was opened, and August 20, 2010, when he received the weapon that would later be used in the murder of Agent Zapata?

2. When did ATF agents first contact Barba in connection with this case?

3. Records indicate Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) interviews were conducted in this case by early October 2010. When were FFLs first contacted by ATF in this case?

4. What information about Barba or the individuals known to be working with him as straw purchasers was communicated to the FFLs?

5. What cooperation did any FFLs agree to provide ATF in this investigation?

6. Did any FFLs ever provide ATF with advance or contemporaneous (within three days) notice of purchases by the individuals suspected to be working with Barba as straw purchasers?

7. Why was Barba not arrested in October 2010 when ATF obtained audio evidence that Barba was obliterating serial numbers before trafficking weapons to Mexico?

8. Why was Barba not arrested in December 2010 when ATF knew he had been unlawfully receiving firearms from straw purchasers while under indictment?

9. How many weapons were purchased between June 7, 2010, and February 14, 2011, by the straw purchasing ring associated with Barba?

10. How many weapons purchased between June 7, 2010, and February 14, 2011, by the straw purchasing ring associated with Barba were interdicted?

Thank you in advance for ensuring your response arrives no later than March 9, 2012. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ranking Member Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-5225 or Chairman Issa’s staff at (202) 225-5074.

Ballistic tests are being run on the handgun Nagy, 43, used to take his own life to determine whether it is the same weapon he used to shoot the apparently unarmed Lantych in the right forearm and right inner thigh. Investigators will also determine whether the gun was his service weapon.

Many Tea Party boards are afraid to speak out publicly about these intrusive requests because of fear of being personally targeted and singled out by the IRS. This is especially scary to citizens of modest incomes that don’t have the financial means to hire accountants or tax attorneys. And that is probably the point. Cower and fade away, or face possible persecution at the hands of government bureaucrats.

The CSGV is perhaps the only U.S. "gun control" group to openly call for a government monopoly on force. Now, though, it seems as if even that's not enough. Not only do they want a government monopoly on force, but it must be a federal government monopoly.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is for those who are a bit unclear about who we are and what we're supposed to be about, at least as the Founders saw it:

We are the armed citizenry of the united States. The Founders expected future generations to be like them, both armed and citizens. These concepts were, to them, inseparable. Only a free man may possess arms that he or she may use for his or her own purposes. Only a citizen, someone constantly participating in the political process and vigilant to threats to liberty, utilizing all non-violent means available can be expected to short-circuit threats to liberty, life and property prior to violence morally justifiable as self-defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

In practical terms, the armed citizenry is supposed to:

1. Provide security in life, liberty and property to each citizen in his home from depredation by common criminals;

2. Provide security in life, liberty and property to the community by assisting, when necessary, duly constituted authority in maintaining civil order; and

3. Provide security in life, liberty and property to the states and nation by being the credible countervailing power to would-be tyrannical government.

These three functions are provided for in the concept of a "well-regulated militia," -- which at the time meant well disciplined, well led, well trained, well armed, with weapons of common caliber -- bands of citizen soldiers operating in the common defense of life, liberty and property.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Each task requires the armed citizenry to be "well-regulated," but each requires a different set of rules of engagement, as we style them today.

Tasks One and Two are, largely, non-political. The burglar is not motivated by your politics (or his) but by the prospect of obtaining your property, the rapist by access to your wife or daughter. Likewise, the ordinary urban mob is motivated less by politics and more by culture and the prospect of loot encouraged by a breakdown of normal civil order. They may claim politics as the reason, they may even believe it, and their destruction may have a political outcome, but the urban riot is merely the common burglar writ large. It is a crime of opportunity. They do it because they can.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Thus, these first two tasks of the armed citizenry are widely recognized as a legitimate exercise of defensive violence. The Founders, indeed, accepted this as they did the air they breathed. It was a given under the English Constitution and the common law that underpinned it. Only today in the minds of collectivists of varying stripes who covet other people's property, liberty and lives is it controversial -- and for the same reason that a burglar bitterly denounces burglar alarms.

Task Three, on the other hand, is entirely political, and thus far more controversial in some uninformed quarters although this was the principal purpose of the Founders in codifying it in the the Second Amendment. In Part Two of this short series, I will discuss what the Founders had in mind, and how today's armed citizenry must adapt their mission statement to new realities that they never foresaw.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." -- Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Received this email this afternoon from a fellow whom I have disappointed in many ways. My reply is below, as well.

-----Original Message-----

From: Daniel (REDACTED)

To: georgemason1776

Sent: Sun, Feb 26, 2012 3:24 pm

Subject: Comments on CPX Foxtrot at WRSA

Dear Mike,

Having recently read the circular firing squad over at WRSA, CA asked you a few direct questions that I believe deserve to be answered,despite having been scrubbed from the comments recently.

I understand you have serious concerns regarding Kerodin, but do you really think that airing dirty laundry for the world to see does anything productive for morale? I think it to be extremely short-sighted.

I understand Gunwalker has consumed your time for well over a year now,and you did your damnedest,and I applaud you for it. However,I was there almost two years ago at Fort Hunt Park when you said Absolved was finished,and yet you are still working on it. That would make me wonder if you were really done with it,or if you're really working on it now.Either way,it doesn't instill confidence in me with you.

I have been financially supportive of you and your efforts on multiple occasions,and I would like to think that I am not misplacing my trust in you.

It would make me happier to see you as the Mike Vanderboegh of 4 or 5 years ago,than what I have seen you put yourself through lately. You can do much more productive things with your time,in my opinion.

We all admire your valiant work in trying to hold Mordor accountable,and we all see the complicity of the media and both wings of the fed.gov party, and bless you for doing the work that the multimillion dollar press refuses to do.

But for petes sake,stop with the Kerodin thing. Please.

And finish your books already.

For the Republic,

Dan (REDACTED)

MY REPLY:

Daniel,

I went through the 90s when we let Kerodins attach themselves like leeches to a movement without doing enough to mark the difference. So, no, I will continue to speak out on Kerodin until dispositive FOIA documents or court discovery records prove me right.

From my latest post this morning, in case you missed it regarding Pete's demand for answers:

Explain to me why I owe you an answer to any of them. I didn’t lie when I said Absolved was finished. It was, in raw form. That I responded to editorial concerns raised by others that caused me to rewrite the entire work — interspersed by huge episodes of writer’s block — is immaterial to you. Gee, I fucked up, I’m human. So sue me. But what, really, do I OWE you, or anybody, about Absolved? Half of it, including most of the tactical, practical lessons, have already been published on the Net. For free. You may not have noticed, but I’ve been a little busy in the mean time, ferreting out ATF scandals prior to Gunwalker, netting together the Coalition of Willing Lilliputians which put us in a position to learn of, and exploit, that granddaddy of all federal scandals. To reckon the Gunwalker Scandal expose’ in terms of “casualties” ignores the value of the results already achieved against the enemy — destruction of legitimacy, barely managed chaos within federal law enforcement agencies — all of which buy time for folks to get ready. Ask Eric Holder how much trouble I have put him to since 2009. This is not something that you didn’t already know, because I explained it at some length to you in conversations early on.

I disappointed you. SFW. Get in line.

You criticize me for soliciting money through my blog subscriptions, yet you more than anybody know the limit of my finances. I could not have accomplished a tenth of what I’ve done on Gunwalker without those extra resources, which, by the way, I have to pay taxes on.

So I don’t meet your qualifications as a leader because I rightly question your choice of convict “friends”? Whose ego is bruised?

I didn’t make up the characterization of Kerodin as a leader of “Death Eaters,” but I damn sure see my friend’s point. Forget his compromised status as a federal felon which makes him eminently blackmailable — as well as discrediting on its face to any claim of “leadership” in the Three Percent — his previously expressed penchant for targeting non-combatants is both discrediting and dangerous. Indeed, accepting such “logic” is merely an expression of feared weakness, not an understanding of real strength.

The MORAL component of our fight is the only thing that makes it worth doing. Otherwise we are the same sort of monster that we condemn. I am a Christian, first and foremost. I will have to look my God in the eye one day and justify my life and actions. If that makes me a disappointment in your eyes, then I suggest you look in the mirror for an explanation.

– Vanderboegh

Absolved was finished, it simply wasn't ready for print. As far as misplaced trust, I'm the same guy I always was. I thank you for your past support and I can tell you that I tried to waste none of the donations sent my way. However, I can only do so much, and my failures are all my own. Indeed, most of my failures came about due to overwork because I could not say no to the many projects which are left at my door, always with the comment, "Only you can do this, Mike." But I am more worried about what my God will say to me later than anything else, as, indeed, we should all be.

There is a tendency -- natural, human trait -- to look for leaders who are omniscient, infallible into whom we pour all our own hopes for success of a common enterprise. I am not such a person. If Absolved has one message above all it is this: don't look for leaders, be your own leader. Do what you can, all that you can, where you are at.

It is certain that no one else could have done the Gunwalker business, or pushed it as far as it has come. Even Pete acknowledged that. So what should I rank as more important than that?

As far as "airing dirty laundry" and "factionalism" it has always been my belief that people who willingly submerge their basic principles in order to attract more so-called "allies" like Kerodin are extrapolating from their own needless sense of weakness, brought on at least in some measure by the isolation and anomie of modern life. And, in the end, they are self-defeating, since they enabled the hand that knifed them in the back. We are stronger than that, or, at least we will be if we understand that embracing such as Kerodin will drive off all our potential allies when the time comes.

The reason I'm so particular about allies and principles is that what we must attempt, should we ever face more tyranny from the Feds, is an open source insurgency, which is to say, many small-scale, local fights with national, even international, principles. Some call it "leaderless resistance" but that is not true. We must be led, but by principle. And only 4th Generation Warfare which targets policymakers -- and policymakers only, not their families or other innocents -- will win. Kerodin, apart from all the questions surrounding him, blurs those moral bright lines. If we fight by his rules and lack of moral sense, we will lose. Hence, I will continue to speak out against him, even with my last breath. This isn't about ego, it is about unshakable principle.

If that is not what you wanted to hear, I am sorry for your disappointment. It happens to be the truth as I see it.

Doing a bit better today -- at least I can stand without falling over -- as I also got a decent night's sleep for the first time in while. I've released all the comments this morning and gone through the email backlog. I'm afraid that's all I've got in me at the moment. Later today I will begin hacking at Absolved again.

This wasn’t part of Operation Fast and Furious, which was run out of Arizona. It was another gun-walking operation, running out of Texas. A second “walked” ATF gun was also recovered from the scene of Zapata’s murder, sold by a different group of people… who were also on the ATF radar screen. How many more of these gun walking fiascoes are there? Who knows? That question should be taken seriously: who knows?

This is, by the way, how the Obama gun-walking operations were designed to work. No credible attempts were made to follow or interdict the weapons, unlike the much smaller Bush-era gun-walking failure called Operation Wide Receiver, which put radio tracking devices on its guns. The entire point of Operation Fast and Furious, as well as offshoots like the Texas operation, was to recover the walked guns from murder scenes. One of those scenes involved a United States Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry. Another involved ICE Agent Jaime Zapata. A couple hundred more of them featured dead Mexican citizens.

Considerable effort has been invested in building a shield of plausible deniability around Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama. Holder’s shield became implausible deniability, once he committed perjury before Congress, and tried to defend himself by claiming he has no idea what most of the Justice Department is doing at any given time, does not communicate with anyone, and believes “lies” are entirely a matter of feelings.

It is, however, undeniable that either of these men could dispel the shroud of obfuscation surrounding the gun-walking murders by ordering full cooperation with congressional investigators, and the immediate provision of all documents lawfully requested by subpoena. They are both accountable for their refusal to do so.

What say you, Republican leadership? Is there enough blood on Eric Holder’s hands to get those impeachment hearings going yet, or do you need to hear him laugh at contempt of Congress citations a few more times?

This bill begs the question whether openly carrying a gun in a public place is, by itself, disorderly conduct. We think it is, for the simple reason that it will cause fear, if not panic, among many people who see this behavior.

Why is that guy carrying a gun? What does he intend? I should call the cops. Those are the thoughts that will dart through the mind of most onlookers. Does it disturb the peace of these people? Absolutely.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Peter Principle states that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", meaning that employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position in which they cannot work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology." -- Wikipedia.

We appreciate your patience and thank you for your help in making PayPal
the safest and most trusted online payment solution.

Please note that your use of PayPal must comply with our Acceptable Use
Policy. Our policy includes a restriction on activities that involve an
entry fee and a prize, such as raffles, drawings or lotteries.

What about the defendants, what about the awesome legal expenses they have incurred to protect themselves from an administration with an agenda that has practically unlimited resources to bring to bear against them, what about the smears against people’s names and damages done to their reputations? What about derailed careers, what about the living hell they—and their families—have gone through for two years…?

And what about ruthlessly ambitious Obama administration officials, up to their own necks in a criminal international gun trafficking conspiracy of their making, all the while doing their utmost to continue their subversion of the right to keep and bear arms in a way designed to bypass the legislature, that is, to keep things “under the radar”?

The Mandate of Heaven (Chinese: 天命; pinyin: Tiānmìng) is a traditional Chinese philosophical concept concerning the legitimacy of rulers. It is similar to the European concept of the divine right of kings, in that both sought to legitimize rule from divine approval; however, unlike the divine right of kings, the Mandate of Heaven is predicated on the conduct of the ruler in question. The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven (天; Tian) would bless the authority of a just ruler, as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. The mere fact of a leader having been overthrown is itself indication that he has lost the Mandate of Heaven. -- Wikipedia.

A Ming Dynasty portrait of the Chinese official Jiang Shunfu (1453–1504). The Mandarin Square indicates that he was a civil official of the first rank.

"Fortress DC: New Capitol lockdown plan in works." It won't protect them from the righteous wrath of a victimized people, though. It is interesting, is it not, that they view themselves as deserving of more protection than the people they serve? In truth, this is not about Jihadis. This is about insulating the Mandarin class from the people they seek to rule, as even they begin to understand that they've lost the "Mandate of Heaven."

As one of my friends so trenchantly expressed it when forwarding this link, "Kerodin's campaign to subvert the Three Percent movement into a cult of Death Eaters continues." I have neither the time nor the inclination to pig wrestle at the moment, but fortunately a friend forwarded me this critique, which I present below.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

The Purpose of War is a More Perfect Peace

The purpose of war is not battle; it is a more perfect peace. To attain peace, a belligerent must break the will of the enemy people to wage war. No nation goes to war to fight; it goes to attain its national purpose. It may be that a nation must destroy the enemy’s army to achieve this purpose. But the destruction is not the end; it is only the incidental by-product or the means to the end.

If a commander looks at the peace he is seeking at the conclusion of war, he may find numerous ways of attaining it by avoiding the enemy’s main force and striking at targets that may destroy the enemy’s desire or ability to wage war. -- Bevin Alexander, How Great Generals Win, p. 30

It has been widely acknowledged that only some just purpose could give meaning to the death and destruction caused by war. Grotius approvingly quoted Aristotle’s view that “the purpose of war is to remove the things that disturb peace.” Augustine believed that peace “is the purpose of waging war. . . . What, then, men want in war is that it should end in peace.” This view of the ends of war is also held by more recent commentators. Even the one whom we remember for his declaration that “war is hell,” William Tecumseh Sherman, in a speech delivered in St. Louis in 1865, said, “The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace”. Echoing this tradition, the British military strategist B. H. Liddell-Hart wrote, “The object in war is a better state of peace.” Clearly there has been a consistent acknowledgment of the importance of securing in war “a more perfect peace.” -- Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace, p.3., Robert E.Williams, Jr. and Dan Caldwell; Pepperdine University

Observations on Kerodin’s ‘Random Thoughts’

The proper consideration and application of ‘jus ad bellum’ (the moral reasoning that justifies the resort to war – the ‘why’), ‘jus in bello’ (the legitimacy of the means used to wage war – the ‘how’), and ‘jus post bellum’ (the justness of the resultant peace* – the original ‘why’ expanded to creating a just peace following a conflict) are each essential if the twin blessings of society and liberty are to be achieved. War engenders much horror, much that is in fact, in normal times, both evil and immoral. Yet there are some things that are illegitimate in peace that become legitimate in war (see “Just War Theory” for a detailed exposition of these considerations.) However, suffice it to say that the attitude “anything goes”; that there is “no moral high-ground” is counter-productive to achieving the ends sought – a better peace.

A regime has to be seen as an occupying power, unresponsive to the will of the populace, resting on arbitrary rule unconstrained by due process, relying instead on intimidation and use of disproportional force—home invasion in particular, networks of anonymous accusers, checkpoints and humiliating searches which can't be predicted or avoided, indefinite detention and lack of genuine avenues for redress. This is the stuff of illegitimacy. -- Ole Remus at The Woodpile Report.

Which brings me to the problem of legitimacy. Any civil war fought between the present ideological factions in North America will have at its core the necessity of establishing and/or maintaining “legitimacy” among the population at large. Else the restorationists are nothing but a bunch of criminals. Most of our fellow countrymen are politically non-aware of our present crisis of liberty. Living their day-to-day lives in ignorance, comfort is their goal. Presented with a political-economic-social crisis, they will gravitate to government leaders for government solutions (to government induced problems, to be sure). This is the default setting – regardless of the inroads which the tea Party has recently made on awakening the electorate from its normal state of political insomnia.

The restoration movement must seek to demonstrate that its view of day-to-day political-economy is the historically American, valid view, and that a return to normalcy (“a just peace”) is more likely, reasonable, and certain once the authoritarian hand of grasping and overweening government is cast off. Absent development of such an understanding by a significant portion of the electorate - legitimacy, with all the tacit support that it engenders, will be lost… Absent a significant identification among the electorate of the restoration movement as ‘legitimate’ in its aims, ways and means, violence – even if directed against perfectly suitable authoritarian targets – quickly becomes counter-productive.

The object is to secure a more perfect peace.

Restraint is sometimes warranted on the journey.

And - the Iroquois Confederation were not fellow colonialists; they were not part of a society and community riven by violent, ideological faction, as is America, circa 2012. The Iroquois Confederation were foreign belligerents which Washington needed to knock out of the war to focus operational strength against the British main force.

This distinction matters.

The restoration movement must have, at its core, a broad understanding of the American Credo, along with an appreciation for turning that creed of liberty into practical applications on “why we fight” – jus ad bellum, “how we fight” – jus in bello, and “securing a just peace” - jus post bellum. Targeting every minion of federal, state and local government for elimination is perhaps a bit counter-productive to obtaining political legitimacy. Scorched earth destruction of the means and mechanisms of economic wherewithal are perhaps counterproductive to establishing a viable, post-war society. Application of ‘excessive force’ – among members of your own society, in the furtherance of the cause of liberty – is perhaps contra-indicated as a mechanism for establishing a ‘just peace’.

When contemplating ideological conflict within a society, judgment, restraint, and a consideration of the resultant state of political economy matter a good deal. Not just ‘anything can go’ – if you want a society that is worth being a member of.

-- Cincinnatus.

* “A just peace is one that vindicates the human rights of all parties to the conflict.” There are four extant principles to a just peace: 1) restore order; 2) establish economic reconstruction; 3) restore sovereignty, or self-determination; and 4) punish ‘human rights’ violations related to the war and its origins.)

When I first came across these allegations, I was confident they were not true. I have hunted with John Boehner; had in-depth discussions with John concerning our Second Amendment rights; studied his politics; and have a clear understanding of how he views our God-given right to keep and bear arms. With all this in mind, I called his office to inform him of what had been published about him, in relation to the House Oversight Committee's Fast and Furious hearings. I also asked for some information to share that would help my fellow Second Amendment activists understand his position on Fast and Furious.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, while some people have exaggerated what I wrote, even without attribution, as far as what I wrote, I stand by my sources.

As another long-time student of the politics of gun-control and the GOP told me, "Look, Mike, I don't have your sources, but a second-grader could figure out two simple facts. First, that the GOP leadership has been intimately involved with decisions on the focus, direction and speed of the Issa committee's investigation from the very beginning. They wouldn't be 'leadership' if they weren't, especially on something this politically dangerous to Obama and the federal regime. Second, the investigation has not vigorously pursued all the clues that it has itself admitted that it had in the various letters to Holder, etc. . . . (and) that it has recently slowed down. Is this an accident? Is Boehner not in communication with Issa and making political calculations constantly about where this is going? . . . Only an idiot would think so."

Eric Holder must be held in contempt of Congress, impeached for abuse of power, obstruction of justice and violating his oath of office, then face felony criminal charges in the United States and Mexico for his role in these gun-walking plots.

Barack Obama must be impeached for abuse of power and violating his oath of office. Afterward, he should face felony charges in both the United States and Mexico for the hundreds of dead civilians and now two federal agents confirmed killed as a result of his Administration’s gun-walking plots.

These men are not just political opponents of Republicans. They are a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America.

The Secretary shall authorize a firearm . . . to be imported or brought into the
United States . . . if the firearm . . .

(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Secretary has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled. -- 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3).

"That's a big hat you got there, grandpa. What are you hiding under there? Don't think that just because my old man was an interstellar cockroach you can put one over on me."

Pyongyang, February 22 (KCNA) -- Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army Kim Jong Un, supreme leader of the Workers' Party of Korea and people of the DPRK, provided field guidance to the Sporting Bullet Factory.

The factory, built in February of 1996 on the direct initiative of general secretary Kim Jong Il, produces sporting bullets for developing the defence sports.

There is in its compound the Meari Shooting Gallery conducive to the cultural and emotional life of the people.

Kim Jong Un first went round the sporting bullet production processes.

Going round chemical, physical and other laboratories and bullet production processes ranging from bullet material production to bullet assembling, he acquainted himself in detail with bullet production and technical specifications and performance of equipment.

In order to make good successes in shooting game, one of the defence sports events in which marksmen compete in hitting targets in different distances by use of various types of sporting guns, it is necessary to let marksmen shoot a lot, he said, adding that to this end the factory should mass-produce sporting bullets for marksmen.

In order to increase the production of sporting bullets and improve their quality, it is imperative to modernize the factory as required by the new century, he said, taking steps to do so.

Then he went round various places of the Meari Shooting Gallery including the indoor and outdoor shooting ranges to learn about its management and operation and service there.

He looked at the sporting gun which Kim Jong Il personally used when providing field guidance and viewed with deep attention the shooting platform, target board, viewing seats and others.

Personally firing a gun, he learned in detail about the concentration of the sporting bullets produced at the factory, luminous intensity and soundproofing at the shooting range.

He said that the good management and operation of the gallery constitute an important work for thoroughly carrying out the behests of Kim Jong Il on improving the cultural and emotional life of the people.

He underscored the need to update the factory in a short span of time and successfully rebuild the gallery as required by the Songun era, setting forth specific tasks and ways to do so.

He was accompanied by Jang Song Thaek, alternate member of the Political Bureau of the C.C., the WPK and vice-chairman of the DPRK National Defence Commission.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Prosecutors recently sentenced a Texas man, Manuel Barba, for trafficking a weapon connected to the murder of Immigration and Customs (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata. Nobody was more astonished to learn of the case than Zapata's parents, who didn't know that Barba had been arrested or linked to their son's murder.

"The family was obviously surprised to learn that there was a case involving a weapon linked to the Zapata incident," attorney Trey Martinez told CBS News. Martinez represents Zapata's parents and the surviving ICE agent in the assault, Victor Avila. "They were surprised they had never been contacted in the capacity as victims so they could give a response or some kind of reaction at the time of sentencing."

Barba was sentenced to 100 months in prison on January 30th. When we asked why the Zapatas weren't contacted, prosecutors in Houston told CBS News they only handled the weapons charges: conspiracy, false statements and exportation/receipt of firearms. Zapata's actual murder "is being handled by another US Attorney's office and... is separate and apart from the firearms case that was handled by our district," said a spokeswoman. She added the firearms offenses "are crimes that do not involve victims in the legal sense of the word and therefore, notifications are not part of the legal process."

In a related development, CBS News has obtained documents showing that Barba was under ATF surveillance for at least six months before a rifle he trafficked was used in Zapata's murder. Zapata's government vehicle was ambushed by suspected cartel thugs in Mexico Feb. 15, 2011.

Documents indicate ATF opened its case against Barba, entitled "Baytown Crew," in June of 2010. During the investigation, court records state Barba recruited straw purchasers and "facilitated the purchase and exportation of at least 44 firearms" including assault rifles. On August 20, 2010 Barba took delivery of the WASR-10 semi-automatic rifle later used in Zapata's murder, obliterated its serial number, and sent it to Mexico with nine others just like it. Nearly two months later, on Oct. 8, 2010, ATF agents recorded a phone call in which Barba "spoke about the final disposition of ... firearms to Mexico and also about the obliterating of the serial numbers before they were trafficked." Barba told straw purchasers the guns were destined for the Zeta drug cartel.

A warrant wasn't issued for Barba's arrest until four months later; coincidentally, the day before a rifle he trafficked was used against Zapata.

Barba is now the second weapons trafficker who had been under ATF surveillance to be linked to Zapata's murder. As CBS News previously reported, ATF had also been watching suspect Otilio Osorio during the time he trafficked a different weapon used in Zapata's assault. Records show ATF watched on Nov. 9, 2010 as Osorio, his brother Ranferi and Kelvin Leon Morrison transferred a cache of illegal weapons to a confidential informant but failed to arrest the men at the time.

The government has kept a close hold on nearly all information surrounding Zapata's murder, denying the family's Freedom of Information requests on the basis of an ongoing investigation. The Zapata's attorney says they will keep pursuing the information by "whatever means necessary."

I have long been a fan of the Mossberg 500 shotgun. Readers may recall that back in early January I had a perplexing, intermittent failure-to-fire problem with an almost-new Maverick 88 that I picked up for a song (probably because the owner knew that it had problems but didn't tell me). For the uninitiated, the Maverick 88 is a less costly to manufacture, simplified version of the Mossberg 500 shotgun. As I wrote at the time:

Some months ago I got an inexpensive used Maverick 88 for my daughters' apartment at college. Having stripped the thing, the trigger group (indeed, the entire weapon) seems near new with little usage, but right now, even with a variety of ammo, it is failing to fire 3 times out of 20. If I remember right from my old Mossberg 500, the rear of the firing pin ought to be able to be depressed (using your thumb) by pressing on the back so that you can, without pain, make the business end of the firing pin peak out the front of the bolt face. Either the pin is binding or the spring is too stiff because I can't do it without pushing it against a solid object. Anybody else had this problem? What fix did you use?

That problem has now been solved. As I suspected at the time, the factory firing pin spring was far too stiff. In fact, even calling it a "spring" may be a misrepresentation. Rarely have I ever seen a spring less springy. Replacing the spring turned it into a 100% weapon.

I also did one other thing at the time to upgrade the Maverick -- I replaced the cheap Maverick slide bar & forend assembly (which is made all in one piece as seen above) with an older, stronger and much more reliable Mossberg 500 slide tube & bar assembly. (See below, without forend.)

My gunsmith had an extra one (minus fore grip) laying around and he charged me just $10.00 for it. We went ahead and swapped it out after replacing the spring, and even though it had no fore grip on it, it still worked perfectly. Now all I have to do is find a new Mossberg 500 foregrip that I like.

Overall the film is very useful, although they spend some time mentioning and/or following theories that my friend, the late J.D. Cash, called "Alice in Wonderland rabbit holes" -- the Arab involvement crusade of Jayna Davis (which made the Fibbies very happy) and bombs pre-planted inside the building, to name two. (Seeing J.D. in the film reminded me of how much I miss that fearless, brilliant, doggedly determined man.)

I was amused to note that the film makers used my poster of Aryan Republican Army bank robber Michael Brescia that the constitutional militias used to embarrass the FBI into finally arresting that Elohim City roommate of federal deep-cover agent Andreas Carl Strassmeier. Amused, for they did it without attribution or mentioning our little psy-ops campaign. Well, there's only so much you can fit into two hours.

Still, the bulk of the film is very useful when it exposes many of the "noble lies" that made up the federal cover-up, especially the murder of Kenny Trentadue. With the above reservations not withstanding, A Noble Lie is a very important work and well worth the price.

The "Gray Man" idea is pure codswallop. No one is a "gray man" in the information age. The sooner people get that and just act like free men the better off they will be. . . It does not matter a damn if the Skull and Bones Society wants to kill your mama. Let the Plotters plot and let the Free men be free.

"Progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress."

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. -- H.L. Mencken

On the efficacy of passive resistance in the face of the collectivist beast. . .

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.

In the future . . .

When the histories are written, “National Rifle Association” will be cross-referenced with “Judenrat.” -- Mike Vanderboegh to Sebastian at "Snowflakes in Hell"

"Smash the bloody mirror."

If you find yourself through the looking glass, where the verities of the world you knew and loved no longer apply, there is only one thing to do. Knock the Red Queen on her ass, turn around, and smash the bloody mirror. -- Mike Vanderboegh

From Kurt Hoffman over at Armed and Safe.

"I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable."

From long experience myself, I can only say, "You betcha."

"Only cowards dare cringe."

The fears of man are many. He fears the shadow of death and the closed doors of the future. He is afraid for his friends and for his sons and of the specter of tomorrow. All his life's journey he walks in the lonely corridors of his controlled fears, if he is a man. For only fools will strut, and only cowards dare cringe. -- James Warner Bellah, "Spanish Man's Grave" in Reveille, Curtis Publishing, 1947.

"We fight an enemy that never sleeps."

"As our enemies work bit by bit to deconstruct, we must work bit by bit to REconstruct. Be mindful where we should be. Set goals. We fight an enemy that never sleeps. We must learn to sleep less." -- Mike H. at What McAuliffe Said

"The Fate of Unborn Millions. . ."

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." -- George Washington to his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

"We will not go gently . . ."

This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, The Lessons of Mumbai:Death Cults, the "Socialism of Imbeciles" and Refusing to Submit, 1 December 2008

"A common language of resistance . . ."

"Colonial rebellions throughout the modern world have been acts of shared political imagination. Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people, protest remains a local affair easily silenced by traditional authority. Usually, however, a moment arrives when large numbers of men and women realize for the first time that they enjoy the support of strangers, ordinary people much like themselves who happen to live in distant places and whom under normal circumstances they would never meet. It is an intoxicating discovery. A common language of resistance suddenly opens to those who are most vulnerable to painful retribution the possibility of creating a new community. As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a short time before may have been the dream of only a few. For many Americans colonists this moment occurred late in the spring of 1774." -- T.H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.1.